Intravenous Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Ischemic Stroke Due to Spontaneous Artery Dissection

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke

Intravenous thrombolysis is the only approved systemic reperfusion treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist physicians in their clinical decisions with regard to intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified relevant clinical questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided if not enough evidence was available to provide recommendations based on the GRADE approach. We found high quality evidence to recommend intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase to improve functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 h after symptom onset. We also found high quality evidence to recommend intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke on awakening from sleep, who were last seen well more than 4.5 h earlier, who have MRI DWI-FLAIR mismatch, and for whom mechanical thrombectomy is not planned. These guidelines provide further recommendations regarding patient subgroups, late time windows, imaging selection strategies, relative and absolute contraindications to alteplase, and tenecteplase. Intravenous thrombolysis remains a cornerstone of acute stroke management. Appropriate patient selection and timely treatment are crucial. Further randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making with regard to tenecteplase and the use of intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion.

Endovascular Management vs Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Stroke Secondary to Carotid Artery Dissection: Local Experience and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) related to carotid artery dissection (CAD).

OBJECTIVE

To report our interventional experience in AIS from CAD and to compare it with conservative treatment of CAD with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) via systematic review.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive high-grade steno-occlusive CAD with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) >5 and ≤12 hours of last seen normal from 2 tertiary centers. A systematic review for studies on IVT in the setting of CAD via PubMed was performed for comparison.

RESULTS

Of 1112 patients treated with endovascular interventions within the study period, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 52.0 ± 10.9 years, 76% were male, NIHSS was 17.4 ± 5.8, 52% received IVT before intervention, and 90% had tandem occlusions. Mean time from last-known-normal to puncture was 4.8 ± 2.1 hours and procedure length 1.8 ± 1.0 hours. Stents were used in 52% of cases, and reperfusion (modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b-3) achieved in 95%. No parenchymal hemorrhages were observed and 71% achieved good outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale 0-2). The literature review identified 8 studies concerning thrombolysis in the CAD setting fitting inclusion criteria (n = 133). Our endovascular experience compared with the pooled IVT reports indicated that, despite presenting with higher NIHSS (17 vs 14; P = .04) and experiencing a longer time to definitive therapy (287 vs 162 minutes; P < .01), patients treated intra-arterially had similar rates of symptomatic cerebral/European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study-parenchymal hematoma 2 hemorrhage (0% vs 6%; P = .43) and good outcomes (71% vs 52%; P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidence that the endovascular management of AIS in the setting of CAD is a feasible, safe, and promising strategy.

Safety and Efficacy of Thrombolysis in Cervical Artery Dissection-Related Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Background: Although thrombolysis is considered to be the first-line treatment for ischemic stroke, there remains an ongoing controversy on the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess observational data related to the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in CAD-related ischemic stroke. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the efficacy of thrombolysis treatment in CAD-related ischemic stroke with appropriate observational studies identified for the study. The meta-analysis models in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 software were applied to calculate the merged rates of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (SICH), mortality and recurrent stroke between thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis in CAD-related stroke. The difference of outcomes and adverse events between the 2 groups was compared by analyzing the pooled OR value and chi-square test using the software SPSS. Results: A total of 846 patients were identified from 10 studies (174 with thrombolysis; 672 with non-thrombolysis). The meta-analysis detected no significant statistical difference in the proportion of CAD-related stroke patients enjoying a favorable outcome at the 3 months' follow-up between the thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis groups (53.7 vs. 58.2%, OR 0.782, χ2 = 0.594, p > 0.05); non-thrombolysis was slightly superior than thrombolysis in terms of excellent outcome (52.4 vs. 34.4%, OR 0.489, χ2 = 9.143, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in SICH, mortality and recurrent stroke rates between the 2 groups (all p > 0.05). ICH rate was higher in the thrombolysis group of CAD-related stroke patients compared to that in the non-thrombolysis group (12.3 vs. 7.4%, OR 2.647, χ2 = 4.127, p = 0.042). Conclusion: Thrombolysis seems to be equally safe and will achieve an efficacy similar to the efficacy of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to CAD. It is also as effective as thrombolysis in stroke from miscellaneous causes. Therefore, CAD patients experiencing a stroke should not be denied thrombolysis therapy. However, this will need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized studies, especially involving intravenous thrombolysis treatment.